DOS ain't dead - What's the 86 DOS system with the smallest LMA footprint?

ecm

Düsseldorf, Germany,
07.03.2025, 23:01

What's the 86 DOS system with the smallest LMA footprint? (Announce)

I compared MS-DOS v5, FreeDOS, Enhanced DR-DOS, and the lMS-DOS based lDOS in this question and answer. All using the same dosemu2 and FreeCOM. https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions...em-with-the-smallest-low-memory-area-footprint/

---
l

marcov 07.03.2025, 23:31 @ ecm	What's the 86 DOS system with the smallest LMA footprint? Post reply
	> I compared MS-DOS v5, FreeDOS, Enhanced DR-DOS, and the lMS-DOS based lDOS > in this question and answer. All using the same dosemu2 and FreeCOM. > https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions...em-with-the-smallest-low-memory-area-footprint/ I only used MSDOS (mostly 6.x after it was out) in the day, but using 4dos command interpreter instead of command.com freed up more memory.

boeckmann Aachen, Germany, 10.03.2025, 13:41 @ ecm	What's the 86 DOS system with the smallest LMA footprint? Post reply
	> I compared MS-DOS v5, FreeDOS, Enhanced DR-DOS, and the lMS-DOS based lDOS > in this question and answer. All using the same dosemu2 and FreeCOM. > https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions...em-with-the-smallest-low-memory-area-footprint/ Did you also investigate the situation without UMBs and / or the HMA being available?

ecm

Düsseldorf, Germany,
10.03.2025, 14:08

@ boeckmann

What's the 86 DOS system with the smallest LMA footprint?

Post reply

> Did you also investigate the situation without UMBs and / or the HMA being
> available?

No, not yet. I'm intending to test the lDOS kernel with less memory available at a later point, regarding the question in https://github.com/SvarDOS/edrdos/issues/136

---
l